Jump to content

"We need a 6 month ban..." revisited.


Followers 6

Recommended Posts

Today, current UK listings = 53,879

With this number of caches spread throughout the UK you have to wonder if any more are needed for the game to flourish.

 

Maybe an idea would be to require the archiving of an unloved cache before a new one is published. That would ensure a healthy turnover in caches and maybe even an improvement in that elusive beast - "Quality" :D

What's an unloved cache? One that doesn't get many finds? Some of the most highly-regarded caches fall into that category. One that has poor feedback? Sometimes people's expectations don't match what they find, because they weren't after that type of cache but didn't bother to check the listing. And anyway, if I place a cache which few people enjoy, that's up to me. Who would decide which caches have to be archived? Would there be an arbitrary limit of (say) 100? What if all 100 were in a series? (I could go on more...) :rolleyes:

 

In any case, as Dr. Solly points out, what's "quality"? Some days I love to find loads of easy caches. Other days a challenging multi is just the job. Then, a tricky puzzle, perhaps. Sometimes, a micro in a layby will do very nicely. Why should someone restrict my choice, when me and the cache placer both think the cache is fine? Why is (for instance) an easy micro in a layby regarded as "inferior"? If it fits the bill on the day, it's the best cache around.

 

Groundspeak are to blame for the problem, in keeping the web site too old-fashioned and not moving with the times. There are too many caches in many areas for the web facilities we're given to work with (which still have the same basic design as when UK caches were numbered in the dozens). We should be able to find (or ignore) caches of a certain type, with the click of a button; the traditional/multi/micro/mystery categories just contain too many caches to be much use. Want a cache trail? Just click on the "cache trails" button and see them appear. Eliminate those with no bonus cache, or with more than twenty parts. Or those designed for car-based caching. Or eliminate cache trails and just see "caches as they used to be". And so on.

Link to comment

Today, current UK listings = 53,879

With this number of caches spread throughout the UK you have to wonder if any more are needed for the game to flourish.

 

Maybe an idea would be to require the archiving of an unloved cache before a new one is published. That would ensure a healthy turnover in caches and maybe even an improvement in that elusive beast - "Quality" :D

What's an unloved cache? One that doesn't get many finds? Some of the most highly-regarded caches fall into that category. One that has poor feedback? Sometimes people's expectations don't match what they find, because they weren't after that type of cache but didn't bother to check the listing. And anyway, if I place a cache which few people enjoy, that's up to me. Who would decide which caches have to be archived? Would there be an arbitrary limit of (say) 100? What if all 100 were in a series? (I could go on more...) :rolleyes:

 

In any case, as Dr. Solly points out, what's "quality"? Some days I love to find loads of easy caches. Other days a challenging multi is just the job. Then, a tricky puzzle, perhaps. Sometimes, a micro in a layby will do very nicely. Why should someone restrict my choice, when me and the cache placer both think the cache is fine? Why is (for instance) an easy micro in a layby regarded as "inferior"? If it fits the bill on the day, it's the best cache around.

 

Groundspeak are to blame for the problem, in keeping the web site too old-fashioned and not moving with the times. There are too many caches in many areas for the web facilities we're given to work with (which still have the same basic design as when UK caches were numbered in the dozens). We should be able to find (or ignore) caches of a certain type, with the click of a button; the traditional/multi/micro/mystery categories just contain too many caches to be much use. Want a cache trail? Just click on the "cache trails" button and see them appear. Eliminate those with no bonus cache, or with more than twenty parts. Or those designed for car-based caching. Or eliminate cache trails and just see "caches as they used to be". And so on.

 

Here Here!

Link to comment

 

In any case, as Dr. Solly points out, what's "quality"? Some days I love to find loads of easy caches. Other days a challenging multi is just the job. Then, a tricky puzzle, perhaps. Sometimes, a micro in a layby will do very nicely. Why should someone restrict my choice, when me and the cache placer both think the cache is fine? Why is (for instance) an easy micro in a layby regarded as "inferior"? If it fits the bill on the day, it's the best cache around.

 

 

Quality is not hard to define. Different people have different geocaching ambitions and caches must be there to satisfy all. For each cache type there are desirable qualities. But also in each category there are abysmal caches. A micro close to me is on a fairly busy road is in the brambles at the bottom of a gate post leading into a farmers field. The cache is about 4 foot from the road without a path leading to it. You can either park by the cache and cause an obstruction or find somewhere else with an unpleasantly long walk in the road itself. Incidentally provided you have the cache description you can leave the GPS in the car. Other than ratcheting up the score the cache has no other redeeming qualities. However on the other side of the field is a lake within a wood accessed along tree lined country lane. An ideal spot for a cache but is disqualified under the minimum distance criteria. It is this type of foolishness we need to address. Incidentally the owner of the cache has set many others, all micros and at such poorly selected sites that it does appear as if their sole intention is to ratchet up their score of caches owned. When all of this started we could chase some brilliant caches of all types but now it would appear that the sole purpose of the activity is to make a find and the quality of the hunt, a well thought through hide, an unique and fun container are no longer part of it.

Link to comment

 

How difficult is it to find good spots for caches near you?

 

Do we need so many geocaches to keep us all happy?

 

What would you feel if there was an announcement on this forum saying

 

"As from 1st February 2010 there will be a 6 month moratorium on placing geocaches within the U.K. and Ireland."

 

 

I thought perhaps I should chip in here and answer my own questions that I posed back there at the beginning.

 

I think it is quite difficult to find "good spots" (by my definition) in our area now. Some may find that difficult to believe as this SE corner of Wales is not particularly densely cache-filled but, naturally, the "good spots" have already got caches. Yes, it may well be possible to place another cache 530ft further along from the "good spot" but is that necessarily a good idea? Does it serve any particular purpose other than to fulfill my desire to put another cache out?

 

So many caches... and so little time :rolleyes: There are more than enough caches in the UK to keep us hunting happily for a few years. We don't need any more but I appreciate that there are always new cachers who want to have the fun of placing caches and I wouldn't wish to deprive them of that.

 

And if there was a sudden moratorium? As others have said, I don't think it would serve any useful purpose... but what if a ruling came down that said something like "You can't place any more caches, but if you archive one of your existing caches then you can place a new one..." Hmmm, yes, I could go along with that.

 

 

MrsB

Link to comment

Quality is not hard to define.

Go on, then! :rolleyes:

 

It's easy enough to come up with a few examples of caches that are poorly thought out. I'm sure I'd be unimpressed with the example you give. Trouble is, apart from perhaps 1% that deserve an array of "disappointed" logs, the other 99% are all "quality" for someone at some time; and who are we to decide that they don't meet some sort of "standard"?

All of us that have set up 100+ caches have probably been irked at some time that a really great spot has been spoilt by a mundane cache being within 0.1 miles. But it's only our opinion that the cache is mundane; it's someone's baby, after all, and it suits some people (at least, the person who placed it). We just have to accept that we were beaten to it, and move on (I've NEVER e-mailed someone to ask if they'd mind moving their "routine" cache so I can place an ace one!).

 

If there is a way to improve cache hiding technique, it's by education. Destroying caches is no solution, nor is annoying cache owners with high-handed policing.

Link to comment

 

A quiz topic answer to the question "how many caches could we place in the UK, observing the 0.10 mile rule"...

 

... If so, then assuming a 0.1 mile gc.com standard separation, you get 100 caches to the square mile (or 121 if it's a exactly a one square mile island not abutting any other one square mile, etc, etc).....

 

You would then get either 5,033,700, 5,035,100 or 5,035,600 caches. Average out to get 5,034,800 caches.

 

Allowing a 1% margin of error allows you to round it down to 5 million."

 

so only about 1% of the total available caches have actually been placed.

 

I rest my statistical case. :D

 

Now if it was based on a triangular grid rather than a square grid, you can get an extra 15% on top of these calculations, ie approximately 5.75 million :rolleyes:

Link to comment

but what if a ruling came down that said something like "You can't place any more caches, but if you archive one of your existing caches then you can place a new one..." Hmmm, yes, I could go along with that.

That would be most peculiar, and I don't see how it would help. :D Nor would it be at all practical. If I've placed two caches altogether, both since 1st Jan, I'd have to archive one so I can place another tomorrow? Hmm...

 

But thanks for an interesting thread, even though it started with a silly idea! :rolleyes:

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to comment

but what if a ruling came down that said something like "You can't place any more caches, but if you archive one of your existing caches then you can place a new one..." Hmmm, yes, I could go along with that.

That would be most peculiar, and I don't see how it would help. :D Nor would it be at all practical. If I've placed two caches altogether, both since 1st Jan, I'd have to archive one so I can place another tomorrow? Hmm...

 

But thanks for an interesting thread, even though it started with a silly idea! :rolleyes:

 

Yeah... well, I was just musing on ways that it would be possible* not to totally stop caches being placed but simply to put the brakes on the system for a while. I was thinking of some way that the output of caches could be slowed, but not stopped completely (because you need some new caches to bring new blood/smilie opportunities/keep the game running). And I guess my "sanction" would only come into force when a certain Maximum Number of Caches by One geocaching Account was hit... hmmm... Let's not go there... too many opportunities for more angst and cries of, "But that's not fair!"

 

*Not that I'm saying such action is necessary. :D

 

I started this thread just to provoke a bit of entertainment and debate. :)

 

MrsB

Edited by The Blorenges
Link to comment
what we dislike is lay-by caches amongst all the rubbish.

 

So don't look for them, or don't log them as found.

 

If I find a cache I really didn't enjoy doing I'll say as much in my log. If I find it but don't write anything I'm effectively silencing myself. If I comment my log that I didn't really enjoy looking for a film pot among discarded beer cans and crisp packets (yes, I did find a cache hidden like that), so anyone who reads the logs can decide for themselves whether they want to bother with it.

 

I can't help thinking that if more people wrote specific feedback like that on cache logs it would be the kind of thing that would gather momentum and would give everybody more information without spoilers.

Link to comment

Quality is not hard to define.

 

Quality is notoriously hard to define because it is so inherently subjective. Given the whole point of geocaching (much like any other hobby) is enjoyment and there are so many different outlooks among the caching community regarding everything from trails to film pots in ivy, what one cacher would regard as a great cache another would regard as a total waste of time.

 

Different people have different geocaching ambitions and caches must be there to satisfy all. For each cache type there are desirable qualities. But also in each category there are abysmal caches. A micro close to me is on a fairly busy road is in the brambles at the bottom of a gate post leading into a farmers field. The cache is about 4 foot from the road without a path leading to it. You can either park by the cache and cause an obstruction or find somewhere else with an unpleasantly long walk in the road itself. Incidentally provided you have the cache description you can leave the GPS in the car. Other than ratcheting up the score the cache has no other redeeming qualities. However on the other side of the field is a lake within a wood accessed along tree lined country lane. An ideal spot for a cache but is disqualified under the minimum distance criteria. It is this type of foolishness we need to address.

 

It seems to me the purpose of the minimum distance criteria is to make sure people don't find one cache thinking it's a different one. While applying rules rigidly is relatively easy (and possibly required by Groundspeak) it seems to me there's little chance of confusing a film pot next to a gate beside a busy main road with a clip-lock box under a fallen tree on a quiet path through a forest. So, to me at least, it would make sense to apply the spirit of the rule and allow such a cache to be placed.

 

Incidentally the owner of the cache has set many others, all micros and at such poorly selected sites that it does appear as if their sole intention is to ratchet up their score of caches owned. When all of this started we could chase some brilliant caches of all types but now it would appear that the sole purpose of the activity is to make a find and the quality of the hunt, a well thought through hide, an unique and fun container are no longer part of it.

 

If placing caches is to be restricted, and assuming restrictions could be applied without imposing any additional work on the reviewers, I'd be inclined to suggest something like requiring a new cacher to find some predetermined number of caches before being allowed to place any caches at all, and then having a low limit imposed until they have found a larger predetermined number of caches. It's not completely idiot-proof but anyone who makes the effort to go out and find enough caches in order to place their own is clearly reasonably committed to the game. Also the requirement to find a certain number of caches increases the likelihood that a new cacher comes across a range of hides, and forms their own ideas regarding what they would like to find before they actually go hiding caches.

Link to comment

I'd be inclined to suggest something like requiring a new cacher to find some predetermined number of caches before being allowed to place any caches at all, and then having a low limit imposed until they have found a larger predetermined number of caches.

This has been proposed innumerable times, but there are so many strong arguments against it that it's a non-starter.

In any case; if you set a dull cache due to inexperience, then when you're experienced enough you'll realise that it's not very good and remove it. If you don't, then no regulations are going to help.

Link to comment

Quality is not hard to define. Different people have different geocaching ambitions and caches must be there to satisfy all. For each cache type there are desirable qualities. But also in each category there are abysmal caches. A micro close to me is on a fairly busy road is in the brambles at the bottom of a gate post leading into a farmers field. The cache is about 4 foot from the road without a path leading to it. You can either park by the cache and cause an obstruction or find somewhere else with an unpleasantly long walk in the road itself. Incidentally provided you have the cache description you can leave the GPS in the car. Other than ratcheting up the score the cache has no other redeeming qualities. However on the other side of the field is a lake within a wood accessed along tree lined country lane. An ideal spot for a cache but is disqualified under the minimum distance criteria. It is this type of foolishness we need to address. ...

Quality is indeed hard to define. From your post I suspect that you're neither a cycle-cacher nor consider the needs of cycle-cachers because that micro close to you that you decry is an ideal excuse for a bike ride while the one you'd like to see possibly has difficult cycle access. I've noted a few caches that are difficult from a motorist's perspective for the reasons you cite that would make ideal waypoints for a bike ride, and I've earmarked them to do when the weather gets more clement. I'd be miffed if they got archived in the meantime.

 

As you say, caches must be there to satisfy all and just because you (or more importantly, the relevant reviewer) considers a cache to be of poor quality for your purposes that doesn't mean it doesn't satisfy some niche of our varied sport. Geocaching dovetails with so many other activities that I suspect it's impossible to say for sure that any particular cache is poor quality except with regard to the condition of the container and its contents.

 

Geoff

 

(edited to correct typo)

Edited by Pajaholic
Link to comment

 

And if there was a sudden moratorium? As others have said, I don't think it would serve any useful purpose... but what if a ruling came down that said something like "You can't place any more caches, but if you archive one of your existing caches then you can place a new one..." Hmmm, yes, I could go along with that.

 

MrsB

 

Or how about "You can't place any more caches if you have 'needs maintenance' logs on, or have temporarily disabled any of your caches".

Link to comment

 

And if there was a sudden moratorium? As others have said, I don't think it would serve any useful purpose... but what if a ruling came down that said something like "You can't place any more caches, but if you archive one of your existing caches then you can place a new one..." Hmmm, yes, I could go along with that.

 

MrsB

 

Or how about "You can't place any more caches if you have 'needs maintenance' logs on, or have temporarily disabled any of your caches".

 

That's a little harsh IMO. How about "You can't place any more caches if you have NM logs, or a disabled cache, outstanding over 6 weeks without good reason being stated in the cache description."

 

That would cover all those instances like, "The area's turned into a building site but I'll be able to reactivate my cache once the multi-story has been built" and "The cache is inaccessible for 8 months because the authorities have closed it for repair and re-landscaping etc"?

 

(We have one of the latter examples, so I'm just covering myself there :rolleyes: )

 

MrsB

Link to comment
Or how about "You can't place any more caches if you have 'needs maintenance' logs on, or have temporarily disabled any of your caches".

 

I was about to suggest the same thing. It's something I have always thought would be a good idea. I'm sure someone will come on here and suggest a number of ways around it. Temporarily enable the cache that needs maintenance and then disable it again after your new cache has been published is one way. However there will always be people who think of ways around any tightening up of the rules . Hopefully most cachers would understand why it was in place. As a general rule it seems very sensible and would hopfully encourage people to maintain their caches a bit better as well.

Link to comment

 

And if there was a sudden moratorium? As others have said, I don't think it would serve any useful purpose... but what if a ruling came down that said something like "You can't place any more caches, but if you archive one of your existing caches then you can place a new one..." Hmmm, yes, I could go along with that.

 

MrsB

 

Or how about "You can't place any more caches if you have 'needs maintenance' logs on, or have temporarily disabled any of your caches".

 

That's a little harsh IMO. How about "You can't place any more caches if you have NM logs, or a disabled cache, outstanding over 6 weeks without good reason being stated in the cache description."

 

That would cover all those instances like, "The area's turned into a building site but I'll be able to reactivate my cache once the multi-story has been built" and "The cache is inaccessible for 8 months because the authorities have closed it for repair and re-landscaping etc"?

 

(We have one of the latter examples, so I'm just covering myself there :rolleyes: )

 

MrsB

 

There will always be genuine reasons for a few long time disabled caches but we all know that they are in the minority. Giving those who get their pleasure from hiding and finding caches a reason to maintain them as well can only be a good thing.

Link to comment
Or how about "You can't place any more caches if you have 'needs maintenance' logs on, or have temporarily disabled any of your caches".

 

I was about to suggest the same thing. It's something I have always thought would be a good idea. I'm sure someone will come on here and suggest a number of ways around it.

Human nature being what it is, I would expect this to lead to many poorly-maintained and missing caches remaining "active". There will be a resistance to the cache placer disabling a suspect cache as it could jeopardise a planned new cache. There will also be a strong temptation to fake a maintenance visit!

Link to comment
Or how about "You can't place any more caches if you have 'needs maintenance' logs on, or have temporarily disabled any of your caches".

 

I was about to suggest the same thing. It's something I have always thought would be a good idea. I'm sure someone will come on here and suggest a number of ways around it.

Human nature being what it is, I would expect this to lead to many poorly-maintained and missing caches remaining "active". There will be a resistance to the cache placer disabling a suspect cache as it could jeopardise a planned new cache. There will also be a strong temptation to fake a maintenance visit!

 

This is true, and I guess much like your reply to my comment about needing a certain number of finds before placing any caches - a cacher who wants to place quality caches will realise something isn't good and either fix or remove it, and a cacher who's only interested in the numbers (in this case how many they hid) will continue to leave disintegrating film pots stuck to rusting skips in car parks.

 

Unfortunately if someone is determined to leave caches regardless of quality (or lack of) there's probably not much that can be done aside from ignoring them. Even if lots of people log DNFs all the hider needs to do is visit and confirm it's still there, and pat themselves on the back for hiding something so well.

Edited by team tisri
Link to comment
Or how about "You can't place any more caches if you have 'needs maintenance' logs on, or have temporarily disabled any of your caches".

 

I was about to suggest the same thing. It's something I have always thought would be a good idea. I'm sure someone will come on here and suggest a number of ways around it.

Human nature being what it is, I would expect this to lead to many poorly-maintained and missing caches remaining "active". There will be a resistance to the cache placer disabling a suspect cache as it could jeopardise a planned new cache. There will also be a strong temptation to fake a maintenance visit!

 

Needs maintenance logs can also be deleted by the owner but not everyone with a cache in need of TLC is the type of person who would cheat or lie in order to get another cache published.

 

If only 50% of full/soggy log books were replaced or long time disabled caches reactivated then I still think it's worth a try.

Link to comment
But thanks for an interesting thread, even though it started with a silly idea! :D

I started this thread just to provoke a bit of entertainment and debate. :D

 

MrsB

You know, I was thinking that with enough iTunes credits added to my iTunes account that I might be persueded to ban MrsB's account for six months for starting this topic.

 

:blink:

 

:wub:

 

;)

 

:lol:(Just kidding of course MrsB, you know I love ya'. )

Link to comment
But thanks for an interesting thread, even though it started with a silly idea! :D

I started this thread just to provoke a bit of entertainment and debate. :D

 

MrsB

You know, I was thinking that with enough iTunes credits added to my iTunes account that I might be persueded to ban MrsB's account for six months for starting this topic.

 

:blink:

 

:wub:

 

;)

 

:lol:(Just kidding of course MrsB, you know I love ya'. )

 

what's yer swiss paypal account? The guys in the IRC channel will all contribute I am sure!

 

*grins*

Link to comment

OK I have only been caching for a little under 2 years now, if any of the above ideas are the correct thing to do I do not know, I do think there is a need to do something about Quality.

 

Personaly I am fed up of:

1) Spending allot of time looking for small finds where larger hides are available. :wub:

2) Finding Micro's stuck pointlessly round housing estates. :D

3) Finding Caches placed with little thought or imagination, :D

 

It is putting me off caching, to try and help note what I feel is a good cache:

 

1) I use the grease monkey to note quality when I log caches, (although fear I am the only one :lol: ).

2) Write HONIST logs, stating what I liked or did not like :D . Then people can decide for themselfs, before wasting time looking for Micro's in ivy. :D

 

If there are going to be a change in the rules for placing caches my thought are as follows:

1) A ristriction on new cachers placeing caches till they 6 months and found 20 finds or till they have logged 100 caches (which ever comes first).

2) A system for cache rating (which again new cachers cannot use till they have found 100 caches or been caching 6 months and found 20 finds) where if after 1 year or 100 finds a cache consitantly get rated poorly a reviewer has the option of achiving the cache.

 

I believe this would would:

1) Concentrate the mind of Cache Placers to place quality caches (would we not all be proud of a high scoring cache placement).

2) Give newbee's a little experiance in what they think is a good cache before rushing out and placing one.

 

None of this is perfect but I think it certainly would help. :blink:

 

Fire suit standing by ready for flaming ;)

Link to comment

OK I have only been caching for a little under 2 years now, if any of the above ideas are the correct thing to do I do not know, I do think there is a need to do something about Quality.

 

Personaly I am fed up of:

1) Spending allot of time looking for small finds where larger hides are available. :D

2) Finding Micro's stuck pointlessly round housing estates. :D

3) Finding Caches placed with little thought or imagination, :(

 

It is putting me off caching, to try and help note what I feel is a good cache:

 

1) I use the grease monkey to note quality when I log caches, (although fear I am the only one :D ).

2) Write HONIST logs, stating what I liked or did not like :D . Then people can decide for themselfs, before wasting time looking for Micro's in ivy. :wub:

 

If there are going to be a change in the rules for placing caches my thought are as follows:

1) A ristriction on new cachers placeing caches till they 6 months and found 20 finds or till they have logged 100 caches (which ever comes first).

2) A system for cache rating (which again new cachers cannot use till they have found 100 caches or been caching 6 months and found 20 finds) where if after 1 year or 100 finds a cache consitantly get rated poorly a reviewer has the option of achiving the cache.

 

I believe this would would:

1) Concentrate the mind of Cache Placers to place quality caches (would we not all be proud of a high scoring cache placement).

2) Give newbee's a little experiance in what they think is a good cache before rushing out and placing one.

 

None of this is perfect but I think it certainly would help. :blink:

 

Fire suit standing by ready for flaming ;)

 

OK I'll bite.

 

Use of the words:

 

I/me/my = 13

we = 1

 

I'm not going to mention grammar and spelling since I respectfully assume English is your second language (I hope it is) but to summarise your post it would go like this:

 

"They (other cachers) are responsible for my enjoyment and hiding caches that I like."

 

And that pretty much goes for everyone decrying quality, micros and nanos. Yeah I'm just a newbie or whatever, and I've been bitten by the forum stalagmites before for voicing contradictory views... but this is the truth.

 

I don't hear professional footballers complaining they lost the game because little Jimmy in the park 5 miles away is playing football with his mates. I don't hear Olympic athletes complaining they lost the gold because of all the amateurs who are swimming these days. I don't hear Hollywood actors complaining their movie flopped at the box office because some low paid actor performing Shakespeare in the local theatre down the street from them.... need I go on?

 

If you don't enjoy a game anymore, stop playing, go away and archive all your caches and make room for people who are more open minded, less bitter and angst filled - who will ultimately get more enjoyment than you and add to the game - which will evolve and will hopefully still be around, taken up by a new generation, when the groaners and complainers have long shuffled off their mortal coil.

 

Or just go to one of the alternative sites which practically guarantee you the feeling of THE OLD DAYS™ - less caches and more emphasis on quality - oh but there's less caches.... well that's what you want isn't it?

 

Your all hunting for hidden tupperware containers filled with McToys for goodness sake! Has anyone taken a step back from this to really question why all the angst?

 

So who's first to "slap me down", form a queue. :lol:

Link to comment

If you don't enjoy a game anymore, stop playing, go away and archive all your caches and make room for people who are more open minded, less bitter and angst filled - who will ultimately get more enjoyment than you and add to the game - which will evolve and will hopefully still be around, taken up by a new generation, when the groaners and complainers have long shuffled off their mortal coil.

I'm not going to slap you down for expressing an opinion.

 

However I would suggest an alternative approach to your "Play it the way I like or go away" suggestion above. If someone enjoys playing the Geocaching game but is dissatisfied by how it is evolving, why shouldn't they offer alternatives? Criticising something you believe is wrong is not being "closed minded, bitter and angst filled" if valid alternatives are being offered.

 

And as you brought up the matter of grammar, perhaps I should point out it's "fewer caches" not "less caches". :blink:;)

Link to comment

If you don't enjoy a game anymore, stop playing, go away and archive all your caches and make room for people who are more open minded, less bitter and angst filled - who will ultimately get more enjoyment than you and add to the game - which will evolve and will hopefully still be around, taken up by a new generation, when the groaners and complainers have long shuffled off their mortal coil.

I'm not going to slap you down for expressing an opinion.

 

However I would suggest an alternative approach to your "Play it the way I like or go away" suggestion above. If someone enjoys playing the Geocaching game but is dissatisfied by how it is evolving, why shouldn't they offer alternatives? Criticising something you believe is wrong is not being "closed minded, bitter and angst filled" if valid alternatives are being offered.

 

And as you brought up the matter of grammar, perhaps I should point out it's "fewer caches" not "less caches". :blink:;)

 

Aren't you just rehashing what I said... my response is already to the "play it the way I like" crowd. I'm with the 'play it and enjoy it crowd'.

 

I assume since you didn't mention them, you agree with all my other points. :lol:

 

ETA: Oh go on then I'll be pedantic only to return the favour, single quotes not double!

Edited by _TeamFitz_
Link to comment

 

Instead of moaning about the standards of caches listed on here, but then running off to another listing site! Try staying and actively fighting to improve quality, by changing the unacceptable mind set some within the community have, and so start a process of improving quality.

 

 

If you don't enjoy a game anymore, stop playing, go away and archive all your caches and make room for people who are more open minded, less bitter and angst filled - who will ultimately get more enjoyment than you and add to the game - which will evolve and will hopefully still be around, taken up by a new generation, when the groaners and complainers have long shuffled off their mortal coil.

 

Or just go to one of the alternative sites which practically guarantee you the feeling of THE OLD DAYS™ - less caches and more emphasis on quality - oh but there's less caches.... well that's what you want isn't it?

 

OK! Now I'm very confused!

 

Mite be cus I is unejicated :blink:

Link to comment

OK I have only been caching for a little under 2 years now, if any of the above ideas are the correct thing to do I do not know, I do think there is a need to do something about Quality.

 

Personaly I am fed up of:

1) Spending allot of time looking for small finds where larger hides are available. :D

2) Finding Micro's stuck pointlessly round housing estates. :D

3) Finding Caches placed with little thought or imagination, :(

 

It is putting me off caching, to try and help note what I feel is a good cache:

 

1) I use the grease monkey to note quality when I log caches, (although fear I am the only one :D ).

2) Write HONIST logs, stating what I liked or did not like :D . Then people can decide for themselfs, before wasting time looking for Micro's in ivy. :wub:

 

If there are going to be a change in the rules for placing caches my thought are as follows:

1) A ristriction on new cachers placeing caches till they 6 months and found 20 finds or till they have logged 100 caches (which ever comes first).

2) A system for cache rating (which again new cachers cannot use till they have found 100 caches or been caching 6 months and found 20 finds) where if after 1 year or 100 finds a cache consitantly get rated poorly a reviewer has the option of achiving the cache.

 

I believe this would would:

1) Concentrate the mind of Cache Placers to place quality caches (would we not all be proud of a high scoring cache placement).

2) Give newbee's a little experiance in what they think is a good cache before rushing out and placing one.

 

None of this is perfect but I think it certainly would help. :blink:

 

Fire suit standing by ready for flaming ;)

 

OK I'll bite.

 

Use of the words:

 

I/me/my = 13

we = 1

 

I'm not going to mention grammar and spelling since I respectfully assume English is your second language (I hope it is) but to summarise your post it would go like this:

 

"They (other cachers) are responsible for my enjoyment and hiding caches that I like."

 

And that pretty much goes for everyone decrying quality, micros and nanos. Yeah I'm just a newbie or whatever, and I've been bitten by the forum stalagmites before for voicing contradictory views... but this is the truth.

 

I don't hear professional footballers complaining they lost the game because little Jimmy in the park 5 miles away is playing football with his mates. I don't hear Olympic athletes complaining they lost the gold because of all the amateurs who are swimming these days. I don't hear Hollywood actors complaining their movie flopped at the box office because some low paid actor performing Shakespeare in the local theatre down the street from them.... need I go on?

 

If you don't enjoy a game anymore, stop playing, go away and archive all your caches and make room for people who are more open minded, less bitter and angst filled - who will ultimately get more enjoyment than you and add to the game - which will evolve and will hopefully still be around, taken up by a new generation, when the groaners and complainers have long shuffled off their mortal coil.

 

Or just go to one of the alternative sites which practically guarantee you the feeling of THE OLD DAYS™ - less caches and more emphasis on quality - oh but there's less caches.... well that's what you want isn't it?

 

Your all hunting for hidden tupperware containers filled with McToys for goodness sake! Has anyone taken a step back from this to really question why all the angst?

 

So who's first to "slap me down", form a queue. :lol:

 

Who said anything about not enjoying the game any more? I love geocaching, it gets me out and about and gives me an excuse (as if I needed one) to chalk up more time on my bike. But there are some types of caches that I don't enjoy, and if I notice an increasing number of them why shouldn't I ask around to find out if other people enjoy them?

 

There are some caches that I particularly like to find, some I can avoid because I know in advance they won't give me much pleasure, and some that I'd expect to enjoy from the text but when I get there I find I don't. If I didn't like a cache because it involved trekking through lots of mud and brambles, perhaps that was because of two weeks of heavy rain and it will be fine when it dries up. It might be the cache owner warned about brambles or nettles but I didn't heed the warning. Or it might just be a really bad hide (to be clear, I'm using the word "bad" to denote a subjective opinion rather than objective fact).

 

It seems safe to say that for most types of hide there are some people in the caching community who enjoy doing them. Personally I get little pleasure from hunting film pots in ivy-covered trees (especially when I can't even be sure which tree), but others do so there's a benefit to the community even if not to me. But when caches appear that are almost universally decried as being of low quality, it makes sense for the community as a whole to address the issue. The consequences of not addressing it is inevitably a rise in lower-quality caches, partly as those who place them are likely to repeat the process as they receive notifications containing little more than the standard "TFTC", and partly as newer cachers who find them will be more inclined to think it's what geocaching is about, and subsequently place their own caches using poorer quality hides as a guideline.

 

Finally, to be honest, if someone's post is understandable it seems petty to nitpick over spelling and grammar. It might be that English is their second language, it might be they are dyslexic, or perhaps it's just that their spelling isn't that great. The implication that the points someone makes are somehow degraded because they made some spelling or grammatical errors is rather silly to say the least. Especially when you yourself seem to have overlooked the fact that the diminutive form of "you are" is "you're" and not "your", as in "your (sic) looking for..."

Edited by team tisri
Link to comment

Deleted post as I really don't want to open a door to arguing with people individually. I didn't intend to start a war over grammar, hence why I said:

 

I'm not going to mention grammar and spelling since I respectfully assume English is your second language...

 

To respond to the OP before this gets out of hand. A 6 month ban on caching to teach better quality etc... is about as useful as a 6 month ban on car driving would be on teaching people to drive better.

Edited by _TeamFitz_
Link to comment

OK when I expected a flaming I expected it for the idea of the 6 months 20 cache or 100 cache rule and the option of reviewers archiving caches.

 

The interesting thing is that is that is not what I am being flamed for :P

 

Maybe there is a way forward along these lines getting newbie cachers to get some experience before setting cache's.

 

To clarify matters with TeamFit:

 

1) I am English and it is my first language (not that it should make any difference). So in future you should remember that old adage about ASSUme.

 

2) I am not decrying Micro's or any type of cache in this post, just some experiance before you can set caches.

 

3) Interestingly having briefly looked at the caches you have set they do seem interesting well thought out caches. I am sure they would not be up for review, if such a procedure came into place. Infact if I am in the area I would look to complete one of your cache series.

 

4) I am not suggesting any ban on cache placing, although for 6 months there would a lull as new cachers could not immediate place caches. Although they would be out gaining experience by finding caches giving them more experience to make what they think are good caches.

 

5) Footballer's and Olymian's do complain when a referee makes a bad decision, they would be right to complain if the referee or judge had no experience of the game he was adjudicating.

 

6) "They (other cachers) are responsible for my enjoyment and hiding caches that I like." You are right that is the nature of the game! If the game was to write down the numbers of trains passing a station, I would not play it would not be interesting to me (although I have friends who do, it just does not tickle my fancy).

 

7) "Deleted post as I really don't want to open a door to arguing with people individually. I didn't intend to start a war over grammar," to late the horse has bolted.

 

8) Finally if you have "been bitten by the forum stalagmites before for voicing contradictory views..." I suggest that you put forward a reasoned argument's, appertaining to the points raised.

Link to comment

OK when I expected a flaming I expected it for the idea of the 6 months 20 cache or 100 cache rule and the option of reviewers archiving caches.

This idea was already toasted in the thread earlier, and has been flame-grilled numerous times before. It's a non-starter. Not much point in burning it again, hence the lack of flames.

Link to comment

 

Quality is not hard to define. Different people have different geocaching ambitions and caches must be there to satisfy all. For each cache type there are desirable qualities. But also in each category there are abysmal caches. A micro close to me is on a fairly busy road is in the brambles at the bottom of a gate post leading into a farmers field. The cache is about 4 foot from the road without a path leading to it. You can either park by the cache and cause an obstruction or find somewhere else with an unpleasantly long walk in the road itself. Incidentally provided you have the cache description you can leave the GPS in the car. Other than ratcheting up the score the cache has no other redeeming qualities. However on the other side of the field is a lake within a wood accessed along tree lined country lane. An ideal spot for a cache but is disqualified under the minimum distance criteria. It is this type of foolishness we need to address. Incidentally the owner of the cache has set many others, all micros and at such poorly selected sites that it does appear as if their sole intention is to ratchet up their score of caches owned. When all of this started we could chase some brilliant caches of all types but now it would appear that the sole purpose of the activity is to make a find and the quality of the hunt, a well thought through hide, an unique and fun container are no longer part of it.

 

Absolutely agree.

Personally I've grown tired of the sort of anything-goes, lowest-common-denominator post-modern relativism that seems to pervade all walks of life these days. The quality of caches has declined in inverse proportion to the number of caches placed each year. But anyone expressing this obvious fact is immediately accused of elitism, snobbery, control-freakery etc by the thought-police.

 

Qichina

Link to comment

OK when I expected a flaming I expected it for the idea of the 6 months 20 cache or 100 cache rule and the option of reviewers archiving caches.

This idea was already toasted in the thread earlier, and has been flame-grilled numerous times before. It's a non-starter. Not much point in burning it again, hence the lack of flames.

 

I am going to seem rude here by asking, I am not trying to be difficult (I don't have to try :anibad:).

 

Can some one either post or PM a link or search words etc that can lead me to the threads? I would be interested in reading the points against, for myself.

 

If I am foolish I may come back for a second flaming by arguing the point again :P

Link to comment

Quality is not hard to define.

 

[...]

 

A micro close to me is on a fairly busy road is in the brambles at the bottom of a gate post leading into a farmers field. The cache is about 4 foot from the road without a path leading to it. You can either park by the cache and cause an obstruction or find somewhere else with an unpleasantly long walk in the road itself. Incidentally provided you have the cache description you can leave the GPS in the car. Other than ratcheting up the score the cache has no other redeeming qualities.

[...]

 

Absolutely agree.

Personally I've grown tired of the sort of anything-goes, lowest-common-denominator post-modern relativism that seems to pervade all walks of life these days. The quality of caches has declined in inverse proportion to the number of caches placed each year. But anyone expressing this obvious fact is immediately accused of elitism, snobbery, control-freakery etc by the thought-police.

 

Qichina

I don't think it's snobbery, control-freakery, etc. It's more that as the number of cachers has expanded so has the variety of activities which which geocaching dovetails. For example, about two years ago someone on the CTC forums asked whether there were any geocachers and it was obvious from the replies that there weren't many. Now there are rather a lot of cycle-cachers, including us when the weather gets more clement. 'The Hearse' saw no redeeming features in that micro he cited yet it's exactly the sort of thing that cycle-cachers need. Four feet of verge is more than enough to park a bicycle and just that one cache would be a good enough excuse to ride a road you wouldn't otherwise. As more cycle-cachers get into the game, you can expect more cycle-friendly caches. I'm sorry that doesn't fit with your model of improving quality, but it does for others.

 

So, while the quality of caches might have declined in your opinion, please don't assume that everyone is of the same mind as yourself.

 

Geoff

Link to comment

The quality of caches has declined in inverse proportion to the number of caches placed each year. But anyone expressing this obvious fact is immediately accused of elitism, snobbery, control-freakery etc by the thought-police.

As it's an obvious fact, then perhaps you'd care to give us a nice definition of the "quality" standard that everyone can agree with?

That would certainly help improve quality. But you must expect that, if your definition is biased too much towards what YOU like in a cache (as opposed to what everyone likes), that you'll have to argue your case a bit. :P

Link to comment

Absolutely agree.

Personally I've grown tired of the sort of anything-goes, lowest-common-denominator post-modern relativism that seems to pervade all walks of life these days. The quality of caches has declined in inverse proportion to the number of caches placed each year. But anyone expressing this obvious fact is immediately accused of elitism, snobbery, control-freakery etc by the thought-police.

 

Qichina

 

I know it's been said already but I'd just like to add another voice about people who cache on a bike.

 

I like to get out and about, and caching gives me a good reason to explore areas I might not otherwise go. One cache I found was a few feet off the road where there was nowhere to park within 100 yards or so, but on a bike it was easy. Had I just taken a print from Google Maps and the clue I could have found the cache, but what difference does that make? What matters is that I enjoyed the ride, I liked the cache hide, and overall I had an enjoyable experience caching.

 

Some people like fiendish hides where you might spend several hours looking for a single container. Personally I don't, I like to find a good cycle route and pick off a number of caches along the way. Some days I might take in 25-30 miles and 25 caches, other times it might be 15 miles and only one cache. Sometimes when I've seen a cache go live and I haven't had anything going on I've made an impromptu bike ride just to go and get a single cache - so far the furthest example was about a 10-mile round trip, for a micro hidden behind a tree.

 

There are some caches I enjoy doing, some I don't enjoy but can see why others would, and some where I just can't comprehend how anyone would enjoy doing it. If I can't see how anyone could enjoy it I'll typically say as much in my log, but generally I come across very few of those.

Link to comment

I don't think it's snobbery, control-freakery, etc. It's more that as the number of cachers has expanded so has the variety of activities which which geocaching dovetails. For example, about two years ago someone on the CTC forums asked whether there were any geocachers and it was obvious from the replies that there weren't many. Now there are rather a lot of cycle-cachers, including us when the weather gets more clement. 'The Hearse' saw no redeeming features in that micro he cited yet it's exactly the sort of thing that cycle-cachers need. Four feet of verge is more than enough to park a bicycle and just that one cache would be a good enough excuse to ride a road you wouldn't otherwise. As more cycle-cachers get into the game, you can expect more cycle-friendly caches. I'm sorry that doesn't fit with your model of improving quality, but it does for others.

 

So, while the quality of caches might have declined in your opinion, please don't assume that everyone is of the same mind as yourself.

 

Geoff

 

As it's an obvious fact, then perhaps you'd care to give us a nice definition of the "quality" standard that everyone can agree with?

That would certainly help improve quality. But you must expect that, if your definition is biased too much towards what YOU like in a cache (as opposed to what everyone likes), that you'll have to argue your case a bit. :P

 

As usual, Pajaholic and HH are able to eloquently express what I attempted to do earlier but in a far more mulish way.

 

+2

Link to comment

Re-classify anything you can't get a TB tag into as a different type of cache. i.e puts micro's into a different class.

 

Have a voting system where caches can be voted off, much like changing the maps on COD etc.

 

Keep placing them as and where people like, within the rules. It's an evolving game and lets see where it goes. You never know I might even do another one.

Link to comment

I am going to seem rude here by asking, I am not trying to be difficult (I don't have to try :anibad:).

 

Can some one either post or PM a link or search words etc that can lead me to the threads? I would be interested in reading the points against, for myself.

 

If I am foolish I may come back for a second flaming by arguing the point again :P

Try this thread. Or this one. Just a couple of recent ones to get you started.

 

The main arguments against, as I see it, is that using the "number of caches found before being allowed to hide a cache" is too simplistic. In some parts of the UK, it can take months to get to 100 finds, whereas in others you can get there in a weekend with ease. Some countries barely contain 100 caches! More to the point, there are some excellent caches hidden by people with a handful of finds. Other caches frequently cause disappointment even though the hider is highly experienced.

Link to comment

Re-classify anything you can't get a TB tag into as a different type of cache. i.e puts micro's into a different class.

 

Have a voting system where caches can be voted off, much like changing the maps on COD etc.

 

Keep placing them as and where people like, within the rules. It's an evolving game and lets see where it goes. You never know I might even do another one.

 

But we all know you can't put a TB into a micro. :anibad:

But I'd vote off caches that are owned by those cachers that have posted a negative log on one of mine. :P

And of course we will keep placing them as and where we like. Within the rules. (just) B)

Link to comment

This --> Re-classify anything you can't get a TB tag into as a different type of cache. i.e puts micro's into a different class.

 

Not this --> Have a voting system where caches can be voted off, much like changing the maps on COD etc.

 

Keep placing them as and where people like, within the rules. It's an evolving game and lets see where it goes. You never know I might even do another one.

 

You know, I'd actually go for this idea - there's a really good practical reason. I've had a few TB's in my possession for a few weeks and every cache I've been to so far since has not been big enough to leave them...

 

You wanna talk about sizes? I visited 2 caches classified as regular, which turned out to be small - really small - a sandwich box that could pretty much only fit some coins and a few tradeables! I have no problem with micros hidden anywhere but it's more frustrating to be planning to drop a TB and find that a REGULAR size is in the eye of the beholder.

 

So I think if this was an extra attribute or something, it should optionally apply to any cache size. Sometimes odd shaped caches are classified as technically small or regular when they wouldn't fit in a small or regular shaped TB.

Edited by _TeamFitz_
Link to comment
I rather like the idea of "Set the sort of cache that you like to do".
So do I, but the last physical cache I hid -on June 29th last year- has only been found three times since, despite being a trad. There's an argument for 'Setting the sort of cache that others like to do' too.

 

Do you lose any sleep over it being found so few times?

Did it get any cut'n'paste " 30th cache on the trail and I can't remember the details" logs?

 

Personally, I'd rather set one cache that gets 3 quality logs a year - and gives a sense of accomplishment to the finders - than a hundred mediocre, drive-by, run of the mill caches.

 

But then I set caches to satisfy my own cache-hiding ideals - NOT to keep the local number hounds happy or to generate reams of one line logs :P

Link to comment
I rather like the idea of "Set the sort of cache that you like to do".
So do I, but the last physical cache I hid -on June 29th last year- has only been found three times since, despite being a trad. There's an argument for 'Setting the sort of cache that others like to do' too.

 

I looked at the cache - It looks a wonderful spot. Surely the fact that it's only had 3 finds is due more to the paucity of geocachers in that area than any 'dislike' of that sort of cache? I bet if that cache and its vista were located within 50 miles of London there would be plenty more logs... but the three that it has already are very appreciative and that's what would count in my book.

 

MrsB

Link to comment

 

Surely the fact that it's only had 3 finds is due more to the paucity of geocachers in that area than any 'dislike' of that sort of cache? I bet if that cache and its vista were located within 50 miles of London there would be plenty more logs... but the three that it has already are very appreciative and that's what would count in my book.

 

MrsB

 

See here for a list of the most "unfound" caches... :P .....The unfindables........... from iCache

Edited by uk89camaro
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 6
×
×
  • Create New...